Online Ad Evidence of Imminent iMac, Mac Mini and MacBook Updates?

[macus3r]

About thinness...

A lot of u have expressed your feelings on thinness and why it's pointless. Well I'm here to break it down for you...

The reason apple is going for the thin approach is two-fold:

1. Cost of goods sold reduction. You have to remember this is a public company and profitability is the number one concern for the "owners." Thinner computers use fewer raw materials to produce computers with. This allows apple the advantage of maintaining price points, retaining product line margin. In some cases apple might be able to reduce selling prices on products and not erode too much off their margin too.

Smaller machines also reduces shipping costs by packing more products per pallet.

Financial cost targets are met this way. So with those bases covered the next to consider is mass public appeal.

It's a known fact that electronics that come in compact sizes and provide some variety of utility to the end user are very popular and sell quite well. The aesthetic appeal is one aspect to consider and the other is physical space consumption. People want to reduce clutter.

The business and marketing cases have been made. Small is good.

 

[justit]

A lot of u have expressed your feelings on thinness and why it's pointless. Well I'm here to break it down for you...

The reason apple is going for the thin approach is two-fold:

1. Cost of goods sold reduction. You have to remember this is a public c....

So the overheating issues and store returns of the MBA were negligible since they made up for it using less materials?

 

[firewood]

So the overheating issues and store returns of the MBA were negligible since they made up for it using less materials?

There's a lot of design room between a MBA and the current iMac in terms of thickness. (especially if you subtract keyboard panel thickness from the MBA and see what's left.)

 

[MacApple21]

A lot of u have expressed your feelings on thinness and why it's pointless. Well I'm here to break it down for you...

The reason apple is going for the thin approach is two-fold:

1. Cost of goods sold reduction. You have to remember this is a public company and profitability is the number one concern for the "owners." Thinner computers use fewer raw materials to produce computers with. This allows apple the advantage of maintaining price points, retaining product line margin. In some cases apple might be able to reduce selling prices on products and not erode too much off their margin too.

Smaller machines also reduces shipping costs by packing more products per pallet.

Financial cost targets are met this way. So with those bases covered the next to consider is mass public appeal.

It's a known fact that electronics that come in compact sizes and provide some variety of utility to the end user are very popular and sell quite well. The aesthetic appeal is one aspect to consider and the other is physical space consumption. People want to reduce clutter.

The business and marketing cases have been made. Small is good.

Are you telling me that it is profitable to make the products so small that they can only handle weak last-gen CPUs and GPUs, which ultimately leads to the fact that a lot people won't buy them.
Seriously, I don't think 1,5 lb. of aluminum and less than 100 cm3 spared materials and space per iMac can make it up for all the users who decides to buy something else

 

[xhambonex]

Haven't you heard of Handbrake?

Yeah I have heard of handbrake...and used to use it a lot. I forgot people actually buy movies anymore.

However, I doubt Apple really is considering that reason, not to mention I assume you're talking about something that is illegal. They much rather you buy their movies on iTunes. I find it odd that they promote their Pro media software but don't offer Pro hardware alongside it. That would be the reason I'd bet on seeing blu-ray.

All Blu-rays starting 1st Quarter of 2010 have to come with a digital copy. Sony is already doing that with its titles offering a PSP/digital version. I guess all I'm saying is I don't think Apple is really worried about offering that feature right now. They probably will eventually at their convenience...

 

[MacDSmith2]

I, or rather my wife has a dell laptop with specs that put it ahead of my white macbook by a large margin - processor, ram, hard drive, video card... it's nowhere near as fast in real life usage. Startup, wake from sleep, connecting to wireless networks, playing back video, multitasking, not to mention all the software I can run that she can't... I do love the hdmi output though... ANYway - specs don't tell the whole story.

-Matt

I agree! Windows NEEDS those big processors because its junk coding, and that INCLUDES Windows 7. The whole history of OS/X and Windows proves this point. Windows has always been a hack built on other people's work. OS/X has some real core innovative development behind it.

 

[zedsdead]

Yeah I have heard of handbrake...and used to use it a lot. I forgot people actually buy movies anymore.

However, I doubt Apple really is considering that reason, not to mention I assume you're talking about something that is illegal. They much rather you buy their movies on iTunes. I find it odd that they promote their Pro media software but don't offer Pro hardware alongside it. That would be the reason I'd bet on seeing blu-ray.

All Blu-rays starting 1st Quarter of 2010 have to come with a digital copy. Sony is already doing that with its titles offering a PSP/digital version. I guess all I'm saying is I don't think Apple is really worried about offering that feature right now. They probably will eventually at their convenience...

The problem with digital copies is that they are SD. I have no problem buying on iTunes, but maybe Apple should get with the program and actually offer HD movies for purchase. There selection is pathetic at best.

 

[jcrowe]

Exactly this. Hell I have a Quad-Core in my Desktop and a barely noticed a difference (and I do animation). Core Duo has come a long ass way since its introduction and it hasn't even reached its full potential yet. Just look how far its gone since they were in the first Macbooks.

My point is that Quad Core has recently been introduced and i7 isn't even a year old and the rest of the i# series isn't even out yet. They're going to have to have room to grow before they reach puberty.

Not to mention with all the new stuff out and coming out (SSD, Blu-Ray, New Port Formats, etc.) I'd wait a bit longer until these new technologies will find a way underhood with satisfactory performance without killing your wallet more than usual.

What people need to understand is that the number of cores in a system will not matter much until apps are written to take advantage of the cycles available. The GCD and OpenCL frameworks are very promising. Once you see apps taking advantage of those two software technologies then multiple cores will make a much larger difference. Until then, running existing apps which may or may not be efficiently multi-threaded will not tap the useful number of cycles on the two or four cores. I can see a number of consumer level apps that will be much more pleasant to use under the full power of a quad-core iMac with GCD and OpenCL.....one is Garageband, another is iPhoto or even Photoshop Elements. Any more efficient rendering of video content would also be a huge win, even in consumer space. 3D raytracers and the like could also benefit, especially from OpenCL. But, frankly, web browsing, email, chatting and the like will likely see no benefit, especially in apps where bandwidth of connectivity is the gating factor. Frankly, for most tasks, my venerable G5 iMac works just fine, or at least will once the faulty capacitors are replaced. I do lots of things on the G5 iMac that don't require more horsepower, but it does gag a bit on video and Garageband. To me, a few reasons to upgrade include access to Snow Leopard when it settles down a bit, a larger screen and programming to the GCD and OpenCL frameworks...for fun....I can also do that on my 2006 vintage MacBookPro.

 

[carolina17]

I'm not expecting a quad core Imac this time but I will grab my credit card for a more powerful Mac Mini.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I agree! Windows NEEDS those big processors because its junk coding, and that INCLUDES Windows 7.

I need big processors because I do animation on my Mac.

And after buying 3d software, I have less money available for those ridiculously expensive mac pro towers. A quad core iMac would help me greatly.

 

[drummerlondonw3]

No it means you get a mac pro and shut up about how a consumer end machine doesn't suit your hardcore editing, programming and designing needs.

god it must take so much effort to come on here and KEEP trolling

 

[PeterQVenkman]

3D raytracers and the like could also benefit, especially from OpenCL.

From what the maxon cinema 4d developers are telling me, Open CL has a negligible impact on most 3d software. If it is on a mac, it is most likely also on PC. They won't maintain a totally different code base between platforms.

And any 3d program worth it's salt is already taking advantage of multi processor power. The latest version of C4d has many aspects of it totally multithreaded- the speed boosts for a dual core were minimal, but an 8 core Mac Pro now blows the dual cores even more out of the water. Shadow maps, displacement- they are all multiprocessor aware and the improvements are insane.

Maxon even has optimizations specifically for Nehalem processors. They said that nets them an approx. 10% increase over a similarly clocked processor without hyper threading.

Open CL may be nice for photoshop, which is slow as balls.

 

[jmpage2]

Despite the frustration I think we should all realize that Apple specc'ed out these new Macs probably six months or more ago. PC manufacturers can turn their stock and ship brand new models every quarter because they aren't pushing the envelope on design the way Apple is. If Apple is releasing a new enclosure they've probably been planning it for a year.

At the point Apple was firming up specs and capabilities for these new machines;

1. Economy was tanking.
2. They were (and are) getting beat up on heavily for their price premium.
3. Blu-ray adoption hadn't started spiking as it has now started to do.

All of these things would explain a decision to release a new C2D iMac with LED screen, etc, in lieu of major improvements. Apple can lower the price, tout their environmental friendliness, and try to hold PC makers at bay for another year, during which i7/i5 will solidify into a single motherboard architecture they can use, prices will come down further, new Nvidia GPUs start to release etc.

We might not like it, but it does make sense.

It also means I will not feel bad about hanging on to my 2009 iMac for another year.

As soon as Apple releases an i7/i5 iMac with a matte LED lit screen, Blu-ray burner, etc, I will be ready to buy, even if it's a BTO machine that costs $2000 or more.

I really like the aesthetics of the iMac and I love OSX, but I'm not going to buy a new iMac that has minor revisions to it, even if it makes sense financially for Apple to go that route.

 

[xhambonex]

The problem with digital copies is that they are SD. I have no problem buying on iTunes, but maybe Apple should get with the program and actually offer HD movies for purchase. There selection is pathetic at best.

What digital copies are SD? Yes their selection is terrible, and since blu-ray movies are upwards of $15 I go with netflix. So much easier.

But yeah, I hear yeah. Some HD love would be great, particularly in the form of blu-ray.

 

[Eidorian]

jmpage2, I've come to the point where I don't think Apple can release new hardware to get me to replace my MacBook short of some hardware failure.

Even so I've been having enough of a disaster with Snow Leopard that I might just be stuck on Leopard unless I want to lose 4 years of work.

 

[MacDSmith2]

oh.. sweet deal

The Mac Mini is the best thing Apple has ever done. It is TINY and FLEXIBLE and can be used, inserted, invented into ANYTHING. Having a tiny powerful computer seperated from the video display and keyboard is wonderfully free to be tailored to multiple displays and uses. Long live the Mac Mini!

 

[zedsdead]

What digital copies are SD? Yes their selection is terrible, and since blu-ray movies are upwards of $15 I go with netflix. So much easier.

But yeah, I hear yeah. Some HD love would be great, particularly in the form of blu-ray.

What's frustrating is that many new movies are available for rent in HD (only on the Apple TV of course), but these same titles can not be bought in HD. I know it is really the movie studios fault, but Apple needs to negotiate a little better or something.

 

[xhambonex]

Despite the frustration I think we should all realize that Apple specc'ed out these new Macs probably six months or more ago. PC manufacturers can turn their stock and ship brand new models every quarter because they aren't pushing the envelope on design the way Apple is. If Apple is releasing a new enclosure they've probably been planning it for a year.

At the point Apple was firming up specs and capabilities for these new machines;

1. Economy was tanking.
2. They were (and are) getting beat up on heavily for their price premium.
3. Blu-ray adoption hadn't started spiking as it has now started to do.

All of these things would explain a decision to release a new C2D iMac with LED screen, etc, in lieu of major improvements. Apple can lower the price, tout their environmental friendliness, and try to hold PC makers at bay for another year, during which i7/i5 will solidify into a single motherboard architecture they can use, prices will come down further, new Nvidia GPUs start to release etc.

We might not like it, but it does make sense.

It also means I will not feel bad about hanging on to my 2009 iMac for another year.

As soon as Apple releases an i7/i5 iMac with a matte LED lit screen, Blu-ray burner, etc, I will be ready to buy, even if it's a BTO machine that costs $2000 or more.

I really like the aesthetics of the iMac and I love OSX, but I'm not going to buy a new iMac that has minor revisions to it, even if it makes sense financially for Apple to go that route.

Not to mention they had their best quarterly revenue ever. So I don't think they are desperate to push the latest and greatest in terms of hardware, especially since Macs don't generally come with the newest hardware.

I'm really not impressed by the things they are doing right now. Maybe they should just release this tablet and surprise me, though I doubt that will happen.

 

[Arcadie]

I hope they really thin the iMac down. They could use 7200rpm 2.5" drives, Atom processors, just one ram slot, there's so much they could do to shave more off it.

The thinner the better in my opinion.

Hmm.. maybe the could make all current imacs, "imac pro" and come out with a cheaper version around $599-$699 with similar configs you mentioned?

 

[newfoundglory]

-Since the google adverts mention the new Mac Mini having better graphics.... I think that means the 9600M GT is coming to Mini land!!!

The iMacs are SURE to lose 9400M too then!

 

[zedsdead]

Hmm.. maybe the could make all current imacs, "imac pro" and come out with a cheaper version around $599-$699 with similar configs you mentioned?

I would prefer this as well, a thinner model with Core 2 Duo chips and 2.5" SATA drives, while the "iMac Pro" would get a little thicket to incorporate Core 2 Quad desktop chips....sadly it will not happen.

 

[wizard]

The landscape is more complex then you imply.

What people need to understand is that the number of cores in a system will not matter much until apps are written to take advantage of the cycles available.

There are two problems here. First is the assumption that people will only have one demanding application running at a time. Second is the fact that SL has libraries that make use of GCD and OpenCL so even old apps benefit from the acceleration embedded in the libraries. For example look at Core Image. Third though I have verified it yet, it looks like the NSOperation facilities are layered on top of GCD. Thus the subset of apps that used that threading facility are now benefitting fron GCD.

Obviously not everything is suddenly faster on SL but what we have seen is that some apps benefit in huge ways already if the computational resources are there.

The GCD and OpenCL frameworks are very promising. Once you see apps taking advantage of those two software technologies then multiple cores will make a much larger difference. Until then, running existing apps which may or may not be efficiently multi-threaded will not tap the useful number of cycles on the two or four cores.

True! An app that threads poorly will not gain under SL in significant ways. Multitasking does however. The benefits of Multi core are not app specific, in fact that is kinda the point of GCD. GCD is more aware of what is happening on the system as a whole than other threading technologies thus it can leverage the hardware better for the tasks at hand.

I can see a number of consumer level apps that will be much more pleasant to use under the full power of a quad-core iMac with GCD and OpenCL.....one is Garageband, another is iPhoto or even Photoshop Elements. Any more efficient rendering of video content would also be a huge win, even in consumer space. 3D raytracers and the like could also benefit, especially from OpenCL. But, frankly, web browsing, email, chatting and the like will likely see no benefit,

Interesting because it is at odds with the improvements Apple was able to wring out of E-Mail for example.

especially in apps where bandwidth of connectivity is the gating factor. Frankly, for most tasks, my venerable G5 iMac works just fine, or at least will once the faulty capacitors are replaced. I do lots of things on the G5 iMac that don't require more horsepower, but it does gag a bit on video and Garageband.

That is because the G5 was a highly overated processor to begin with. Still I can't reasonably suggest getting a new Mac with out quad or more cores. SL is purpose built to leverage the SMP machines of the future. Quad core is the cheapest way to get there today.

To me, a few reasons to upgrade include access to Snow Leopard when it settles down a bit, a larger screen and programming to the GCD and OpenCL frameworks...for fun....I can also do that on my 2006 vintage MacBookPro.

I have an old MBP ( early 2008 ) that I upgraded when SL came out. I'm extremely pleased with it and for me the regressions have been minor. In fact I configured for 64 bit about a week after the update and haven't looked back. To say I'm very pleased is an understatement. Apple managed to deal with numerous Leopard bugs while making my machine much faster, you can't knock that. Still if you are on a desktop machine I can only suggest to demand quad core computing, it is the wave of the future.


Dave

 

[TheMacPotato]

Gahh! Stop it with the thinness. The iMac is a desktop. We don't need it thin, I'd rather have a fat computer with a non-laptop spec!

 

[MacDSmith2]

Hasn't anyone considered that these adsense ads are just for the current models ? I mean come on..They can still be seen if you use google.Do people really think Apple would allow this ?

An insider posted on 123MacMin.com that he was told to "wait until October" to buy a Mac Mini. I think that confirms the rumors. Something will happen this week, probably tuesday.

 

[zedsdead]

An insider posted on 123MacMin.com that he was told to "wait until October" to buy a Mac Mini. I think that confirms the rumors. Something will happen this week, probably tuesday.

Considering a redesigned iMac, a redesigned Macbook, a new mouse (with multitouch) and a new keyboard, I would say an event is called for. That means its likely a week off since no invitations went out.

If there is no major design changes, then yes, I would agree this week (which may be the case with the Mini, but I doubt they would update it a week before the iMacs).

Also, since the iMac's have slipped to 2 weeks shipping, I expect the event on Wednesday, October 14th (not Tuesday, because that is Columbus Day week and Apple makes events a day later on weeks where there is a Monday holiday).